That should read:
But rarely if ever has a single news organization mounted such a public campaign against any White House.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted on 06/28/2006 4:52:44 AM PDT by teddyballgame
But rarely if ever has any White House mounted such a sustained public campaign against a single news organization. And a vast array of pundits on the right have responded by escalating their rhetoric.
Heather MacDonald, writing in the Weekly Standard, called the Times "a national security threat" that is "drunk" on its own power.
William Bennett, the former Reagan administration official and conservative radio host, said the "cumulative impact" of both Times stories, and The Post's disclosure of secret CIA prisons overseas, had brought the situation to a "critical mass." Conservatives, he said, now wonder: "Gosh, is there a secret operation we're running that won't be disclosed by the press?"
Bennett favors prosecuting journalists in national security cases, but believes that bringing espionage charges is not the best approach. He favors a leak investigation.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
New York Times editors need to be arrested and charged with espionage. The lowliest freelancer doesn't have to go begging to the New York Times not to steal his writings... The law stands with him. If the Times publishes his stuff, he can sue. There's case law surrounding the process of publishing. The State needs to create new case law that deals with publishing State secrets. The way that's done is by our court system. And the start of that has to be an arrest. Where is the FBI?
That should read:
But rarely if ever has a single news organization mounted such a public campaign against any White House.
~~~~~~~~~~~
The thing with the Times has become critical. Either the Times has to get hurt or the Bush administration and the republican party will be badly hurt, one or the other. They (republicans) cannot choose to sit back and ignore this one at this juncture.
I can only hope that every time the NY Times leaks a secret program, a trap is sprung for some CIA mole such as Mary McCarthy.
And of course, who can forget the heinous mrs. slick willie remarking that the internet needed to be 'controlled'......(was that her exact word, I can't recall)
I can tell you where they were a number of years ago!
They had ME on a rotisseri when I was working on classified programs and had a friend from Russia.
They were concerned I _MIGHT_ release classified information.
If ONLY I knew that it would be OK to buy a front page ad in the NYT!!
Wanna bet? They'll kick and stomp their feet, mount some token investigation and it will disappear from the news. I hope they prove me wrong, but I seriously doubt it.
But never has any major mainstream newspaper mounted such a sustained public display of plain treason under the guise of news, and the "people's" right to know where, plainly, the enemy of the state derives priceless benefits to the detriment of both citizens at home and American soldiers in the battleground.... and a vast array, a conglomerate of the clueless and the vicious have compounded the treason by lowering the rhetoric to the logic of children.
No... it's now reached the point where the Times is hurting the country and our ability to locate and defeat the terrorists... That's what's different now.
I can only hope their sales will plummet .
So, let me get this straight ... the NYT leaked vital information, and endangered our war effort, and the pundits on the Left don't seem to be upset at all?? Geeeeeeee, I wonder why ...?
The Left wants us to lose the war. How can it be denied? I don't question their patriotism -- all my questions were answered a long time ago.
I agree that the Times are scums, but the real traitor's are the government leaker's, especially if they are Republican malcontents.
"But rarely if ever has any White House mounted such a sustained public campaign against a single news organization."
That should read:
But rarely if ever has a single news organization mounted such a public campaign against any White House.
My thoughts exactly.
"I agree that the Times are scums, but the real traitor's are the government leaker's, especially if they are Republican malcontents."
Highly unlikely that the leakers are Republican malcontents, try lifelong, Bush-hating beaurocrats.
"Correction:
Rarely, if ever, has the drive-by media waged such a sustained, nasty, rabid all out war against any administration in this country, or displayed such hatred towards any president.
That is what Howard Kutz should be talking about."
Yup, and the level of arrogance on Kurtz. The DBM is so out of touch with where American's loyaties lie. The NYT puts us at greater risk and Kurtz is angry at the White House for pointing it out?!?
Yes, years later in a different facility I asked the DISCO visitor who was setting us up about the Designated Countries List.
He said with disgust in his voice that it had been dropped because it was Non-PC.
Nevertheless the Laws are still there, and the leaker/NYT vector has to be found and neutralized promptly, and in a manner that would discourage further crimes.
NEVER buy a copy of their paper.
But rarely if ever has any White House mounted such a sustained public campaign against a single news organization.
As with the Swift Boat vets, liberals don't believe that patriotic Americans act and think on their own. I guess liberals think that Freepers get instructions on what to post from Karl Rove.
Whoever is leaking this information needs to be executed. I don't care who it is, be it the most conservative member of congress or some leftover Clinton Admin bureaucrat, this person along with the NY Times is going to be responsible for the deaths of American citizens. These people have made the US a less safer place. They are complicit in the deaths of innocent people who will now die because our efforts to track terrorists have been compromised.
If the justice department does not aggresively go after the leaker and their accomplices in the MSM, then the Bush Administration will be just as complicit. They should have brought charges after the first leak. They didn't. They should have brought charges after the second leak. They didn't. They should have brought charges after the third leak. They didn't. Now we basically have lost nearly all our weapons in the ability to track terrorists and still nothing has been done.
I simply cannot fathom why the NY Times is still operational. They are on the side of the terrorists. They are, in fact, an Al Queada sleeper cell. Why on earth have they not been shut down? Why are their editors not sitting in cells in Guantanamo?
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg leave a federal courthouse in New York City in 1950 after being arraigned on charges of espionage. Both were later convicted of passing secret information about the construction of nuclear weapons to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and were executed in 1953.
It does not appear that they care.
They are on the side of the terrorists. They seem to be willing to sacrifice their paper in their quest to destroy America.
It is clear that the NY Times is the corporate equivalent of a suicide bomber.
I don't recall her exact words either but you got the sentiment right and by "control" she means by the government with her at the helm.
I don't believe she will ever be president and am begining to think she won't even be the dem candidate with the NYT turning on her but she still is the absolutely clearest threat to freedom alive today.
Just as weak responses to early Islamofascist terror led to 9/11. so did this this Administration's wimpy treatment of the Demonrat mafia ( the outrageous lenience of the Bush Justice Dept. toward Sandy Burglar being just one example) encourage them to commit further atrocities. The country is paying a heavy price for Bush's lackadaisical attitude. Any time criminals learn they can act with impunity, they will escalate their activities.
There are those such as the NYSlimes, Senator Byrd, Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews, who despise the very fact of the state of Israel, they'd perfer us to lose Iraq.
Abraham Lincoln did something very similar. Again, these idiots say stuff without actually knowing anything. "Rarely, if ever. . . "
Abraham Lincoln did it. He jailed the editor of a newspaper. Forceably removed him, had him in restraints.
He's not exactly Richard Nixon in terms of historical stature.
It's not the Party that's going to get hurt, its people that are going to get hurt. Someone is going to attack the US or one of its allies and people will die.
This is the point. It's not just politics here. The NYT has done the equivalent of telling the enemy we've broken their codes, after having published an editorial on the importance of breaking their codes.
It's really that simple. That Sulzberger is still breathing free air is indicative of how little respect we have collectively for the rule of law.
Investigate. . .but lock an bar their doors. . .in the meantime.
I can only hope their sales will plummet."
Sales will not plummet, nor advertising. 25-30% of our nation is predictably leftist and that is enough readers and businesses to keep the NYT profitable. But ...
What will bankrupt the NYT is a very public, long, drawn-out criminal investigation by a special prosecutor and an impartial judge. Imagine the trial going on for years, and for discovery the Feds are allowed to subpoena documents dating back to the Pentagon Papers to show a pattern. Include in the indictment low-IQ Pinch Sulzberger, subpoena all his public statements revealing bias. Also include the entire editorial board and the reporter who did the story. Plus the correspondence with the Pulitzer Prize committees. Drag the thing out for years.
So, by the time of the 2008 election the Times folks will be pleading guilty to leaking secrets and conspiracy. Penalities will be in the hundreds of thousands per individual and millions for the NYT.
But their legal fees are the real bill. They will be over $100 million. And the board of directors will fire weasely Pinch and all his editors and instruct them to stop their POS, 1960s, Vietnam-era style of reporting.
And then we will finally have a reasonable throttle on media madness. And today's youth, which are not 1960s hippies but more conservative, will take over the reporting jobs and return us to a time when the media is more respectful and observant of their patriotic duty.
Amen.
New term: "Circling of the Dinasours"
Is anyone upset because the WSJ published information about the program? Or is it immune due to its political bent?
And the NYT has a real track record for doing this. Sabotaging the war is basically their official policy.
It is good to know the rest of the OLD Media share the same values of hate with the NYTimes. Hopefully, others will recognize the rest of them for what they are.
In what way would our security be higher if NYT didn't publish? None, because others were publishing.
Which paper had it on their web site first? C'mon -- you know the answer.
Be intellectually honest for just a moment and explain why you aren't angry with the WSJ.
NYT ran the story after that the flood gates opened (WSJ, LA Times and WaPost). If you want people to be mad at them as well, fine. But lets face facts, the NYT has got a track record that does not compare to anyone.
They have gone out of the way to hurt this administation and endanger the security of America at any opportunity. So, if you want to soun indignant - go ahead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.